acerxtro 2025-04-01 07:53 p.m.I will accept no further debate for this order. We've gone around in circles over and over. Just because another judge accepts something, it doesn't mean I will. There's a reason each person sitting on the bench is a human and not a robot or an algorithmic machine.
If you want to ask why the DOJ was ordered to change their templates to be compliant with the 6A & the rules of the District Court, you can view Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, 1995 WL 360309 (1994). In this case, when a McDonalds Franchise made coffee unreasonably hot which burnt customers, the court did not stop at solely limiting that one franchise and leaving the thousands of other ones to be sued. Instead, the corporation itself was sued and the problem was stopped at the source: all McDonalds Franchises had to adhere to the court's order. While different, this case is a prime example of how courts are absolutely able to issue injunctions on individuals other than solely the defendant.
The DOJ has three days to comply with the court order. The Court has debated and will not be overturning the order. Stays, as always, are a viable option to appeal this decision, and the Supreme Court can have the opportunity to review the rulings of both myself & Judge HRR on pleading document requirements.
@Nicklaus @Reapers @walter!